Hillary Clinton

If You Liked the Peace and Stability of Henry Kissinger's Foreign Policy, Vote Hillary Clinton in 2016!

The horrific failures of our bipartisan foreign policy establishment.

|

Hillary and Henry sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G-E-R!

It says a lot about former secretary of state and presumed presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton that she's a member of the Henry Kissinger Fan Club. Progressives who despised George W. Bush might want to examine any warm, fuzzy feelings they harbor for Clinton.

She has made no effort to hide her admiration for Kissinger and his geopolitical views. Now she lays it all out clearly in a Washington Post review of his latest book, World Order.

Clinton acknowledges differences with Kissinger, but apparently these do not keep her from saying that "his analysis … largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."

Beware of politicians and courtiers who issue solemn declarations about building global architectures. To them the rest of us are mere "pieces upon a chess-board." Security and cooperation are always the announced ends, yet the ostensible beneficiaries usually come to grief. Look where such poseurs have been most active: the Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine. As they say about lawyers, if we didn't have so-called statesmen, we wouldn't need them.

If I didn't know better, I'd suspect some pseudonymous writer of having fun with irony in this review. Behold:

President Obama explained the overarching challenge we faced in his Nobel lecture in December 2009. After World War II, he said, "America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace.…"

Keep the peace — if you don't count the mass atrocity that was the Vietnam War, the U.S.-sponsored Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and various massacres carried out by U.S.-backed "leaders" in such places as Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan)East TimorChile, and elsewhere.

One Henry Kissinger had a hand in all these crimes, by the way. Strangely, Clinton doesn't mention them.

America, at its best, is a problem-?solving nation.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya are only the latest examples of problems America solved during Madam Secretary's tenure, building on the glorious successes of George W. Bush's team. Henry the K is no doubt flattered by the homage.

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.

Now things make sense. That Hillary Clinton thought Kissinger — Henry Kissinger — a worthy advisor is something we should all know as 2016 looms.

What comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.

There really is no viable alternative. No other nation can bring together the necessary coalitions and provide the necessary capabilities to meet today's complex global threats. But this leadership is not a birthright; it is a responsibility that must be assumed with determination and humility by each generation.

It takes chutzpah to write humility even remotely in connection with Kissinger. And if the U.S. empire is indispensable to justice and liberalism — and where are these, exactly? — we are in trouble. The record is not encouraging. Kissingerian "realism" creates global threats.

The things that make us who we are as a nation — our diverse and open society, our devotion to human rights and democratic values — give us a singular advantage in building a future in which the forces of freedom and cooperation prevail over those of division, dictatorship and destruction.

Devotion to human rights and democratic values — as shown in Egypt, where Clinton stuck by another friend, Hosni Mubarak, against a popular uprising. The woman has some friends!

"Any system of world order, to be sustainable, must be accepted as just — not only by leaders, but also by citizens," he writes.

The suggestion that Kissinger cares what ordinary citizens anywhere think is ridiculous. What he cares about is states, which he puts in one of two categories: those that buckle under to the Indispensable Empire and those that do not.

Henry, er, Hillary in 2016? You might want to rethink that.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Advertisement

NEXT: How is a garlic press like a legal doctrine?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Progressives who despised George W. Bush might want to examine any warm, fuzzy feelings they harbor for Clinton.

    But they won’t. HRC, like Obama, can do whatever she likes because she’s performed the ritual of group solidarity. GWB didn’t perform that ritual, so progressives hated him even as they fapped themselves raw over most of his domestic agenda.

    1. Obama’s approval rating seems to show that he’s about as popular with his base as W was. You’d be correct if O’s approval rating was somewhere north of 50%.

      1. I think that 37%, or wherever he is right now, really is his base. The others are swing voters and true liberals (rather than progressives).

        The people that still support him, at this point might still support him, if he raped an intern and kicked a puppy to death.

        And those are the people who will be choosing the next Democratic nominee, too. That’s why we should expect to see Hillary and Liz Warren try to outdo each other going more and more progressive through the nominating process.

        If Hillary is smart, she’ll do the same thing Obama did when Hillary was keeping him from moving to the center–she’ll offer Warren a plum appointment gig. I doubt Warren will accept being the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the Democrats win, we should expect that Liz Warren will be the next Secretary of the Treasury at least.

        1. Ken, are you averring that Cheyenne Lizzy does not aspire to be the next Donehogawa?

          1. In a better world, that would be Hillary’s first offer.

            1. But Warren could meet a lot of people like her that way!

  2. Needed a wide lens for that shot, did you?

    1. Has Kissinger shrunk? Hillary appears to tower over him and she is short AND FAT.

  3. I agree that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is an excellent reason to oppose her presidency, but you could walk away from this piece with the mistaken impression that Hillary Clinton is a realist or that Kissinger was a neoconservative.

    No doubt, Kissinger did some awful things, but it’s theoretically possible to be a realist and avoid Kissinger’s mistakes. Certainly, if Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy ideas are dangerous, it’s becasue they’re neoconservative–not because they’re realist like Kissinger.

    Hillary Clinton’s beef with the Bush the Lesser Administration was that Bush wasn’t going far enough in his neoconservatism.

  4. Almost all of the realists, including Kissinger and Scowcroft, opposed the war in Iraq–on realist grounds. At least, almost all the realists opposed it right up until we invaded–at which point a lot of them, with memories of Vietnam, felt it was their patriotic duty to support the Iraq War.

    Months before we invaded, this article ran in the NYT explaining why so many realists opposed invading Iraq:

    “These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush’s national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08…..ategy.html

    Why conflate Hillary Clinton with realism? If her foreign policy is dangerous–it’s because she’s NOT a realist.

    1. For those of you who are keeping score at home? The realists were right about a lot of things in 2002:

      That’s 1 point for the Iraq War having alienating allies
      1 point for the Iraq War creating instability in the Middle East
      1 point for the Iraq War harming long-term interests
      and 1 point for Iraq not posing an urgent threat to the United States.

      Realists: 4 points.

      Neoconservatives: Goose Egg

      Realists win!

      We can only hope that Hillary Clinton will listen to Henry Kissinger.

  5. Kissingerian “realism” creates global threats.

    Nonsense. What “global threat” was created by Kissinger during his tenure (1969-77)?

    Moreover, what is the connection to Obama and Hillary besides both of them preferring to be associated with a much more successful foreign policy?

    Realism is entirely at odds with the governing philosophy of either person. The fact that they say some kind words about a Kissinger book does not make them realists. Not that Kissinger was a saint, but his “crimes” essentially amount to doing business with unsavory regimes — something which, I will note, the left is not particularly bothered by in the case of Kissinger’s China policy.

    1. No doubt, Kissinger made mistakes and he was a realist, but just because he was wrong about some things doesn’t mean realists are wrong about everything.

      They were right about a lot of things–including not invading Iraq. The reason we didn’t invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein in ’91 was because of the realists! And the reason we invaded Iraq in 2003 was because the neoconservatives ignored the realists.

      The realists made all kinds of terrible mistakes during the Cold War–and ultimately we won the Cold War the way we did because of the successes of their realist strategy…

      But why are we going after Hillary Clinton for being a realist? That’s wishful thinking! IF ONLY Hillary Clinton were worried about the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine

      She’s not. She doesn’t give a damn about such realist considerations. I’m worried she might actually invade somewhere like Iraq–for the express benefit of Iraqis! …without any serious considerations of America’s interests at all. That’s why you oppose Hillary’s foreign policy.

      Not because she’s a realist.

      1. Exactly.

        1. Are you forgetting about Kissinger’s role in one of the great mass murders and humanitarian crises of the 20th century, the 1971 atrocities in Bangladesh?

          Kissinger egged on the brutal, mass murdering Pakistani military dictatorship in the aftermath which, of course, led to the Pakistani / Indian war.

          Nearly 10 million fled to India as the Pakistani regime murdered thousands.

          Tricky Dick and Kissinger were not big fans of Indira G., and they even encouraged the Chicoms to mass troops on the Indian border.

          Perhaps, you might want to walk back your asseveration that Mr. Realpolitik did not cause any threats – he assisted in aggravating a humanitarian disaster.

  6. Progressives who despised George W. Bush might want to examine any warm, fuzzy feelings they harbor for Clinton

    Being a progressive means that you DON’T examine any warm, fuzzy feelings you harbor for a favorite politician.

    To be libertarian is to ALWAYS be examining your warm fuzzy feelings for your favorite politician, which is why libertarians don’t win anything.

    1. “Progressives who despised George W. Bush might want to examine any warm, fuzzy feelings they harbor for Clinton”

      I agree with that statement 100%.

      But how the hell did we transition from that to chastising Hillary for being under the influence of Henry Kissinger?

      1. I’m thinking maybe it’s a baby boomer thing. All their old right-wing villains from the ’60s are dead–except for Henry Kissinger.

        Ricard Nixon: Dead
        Spiro Agnew: Dead
        Ronald Reagan: Dead
        Robert McNamara: Dead

        Henry Kissinger: Alive!

        Henry Kissinger is like the Abe Vigoda of foreign policy!

  7. In 1972 Egypt and Syria were massing troops for a attack on Israel.The King of Jordan warned them.Many in the IDF wanted a attack before the Arab armies could move.Golda Meir nix it,she was was afraid the US would not support them. Kissinger said if they had Israel would ‘have got not so much as a nail”,or some such statement.Israel came close to using atomic bombs to repel their enemies.People and pieces on a board to this horrible man.

  8. are,crap

  9. Really Sheldon? We could only wish the people in power would listen to Henry Kissinger. He’s certainly not perfect, but he also isn’t bat shit insane and knows how to articulate a foreign policy that at least sounds reasonable.

    1. Seriously? Kissinger was a warmongering piece of shit.

      1. Who opposed Iraq in 2003 and helped end Vietnam.

        1. Have you heard of Operation Searchlight or the Blood Telegram? Kissinger and Nixon were scoundrels of the first order.

          Nixon went so far as to threaten India with nukes. The short-sightedness of their foreign policy pushed India closer to the Soviet Union to the detriment of freedom within India. Instead of encouraging freedom within a large, stable democracy surrounded by dictatorships and kingdoms, Kissinger and Nixon royally f***ed up South Asia.

          1. “The short-sightedness of their foreign policy pushed India closer to the Soviet Union to the detriment of freedom within India.”

            India was effectively an ally of the Soviet Union since the 1950s.

            http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India?Russia_relations #Soviet_Union_and_India

            A lot of that had to do with both India and the Soviet Union’s relationship with China.

            Like I said, Kissinger made plenty of mistakes, but let’s not pretend everything he did was without reason, that there weren’t any positive outcomes, or that Kissinger personally is the same as realism itself.

        2. A foreign policy professor of mine used to relate interesting anecdotes about Kissinger. Most of them were demonstrative of a person who enjoys belittling underlings and playing mindgames just because he can. He is a Grade A asshole.

          1. History is a collection of anecdotes about assholes.

            I knew a surgeon one time. Biggest asshole in the hospital. I once listened to him talk to the parents of a child who’d just died on the operating table. He told them they made the right decision–their child wouldn’t have lived long without the surgery anyway. And he was right.

            He had to leave that mother wailing–because there was another child already anesthetized and waiting for him to undergo the same procedure! You don’t want a nice guy in a situation like that. Who gives a shit about his bedside manner?

            Fighter pilots, quarterbacks, brain surgeons, military commanders, race car drivers, and, yeah, maybe foreign policy analysts during the Cold War, too: I don’t think being a nice guy is very high up on the list of desirable qualifications. Sometimes, you might need to drop nuclear bombs on innocent people.

            And you’re talking about how he wasn’t the kind of guy you’d invite over for barbeque?

            I’ve heard Douglas MacArthur could be a real arrogant son of a bitch. So fucking what?

          2. Sociopath indeed

            1. architect of a mass murdering foreign policy, thats not asshole-ish enough for you?

              1. I would argue that liberty, and free markets did more to bring the USSR down than any military action ever did.

                1. As an addendum. Black Markets, and Black Market associations were also the tools that brought down communism. IMO Kissinger’s statist foreign policy prolonged the Cold War.

                2. They were a big help, but Stalin had to deal with the same market forces. You can get around it by way of expansion (like Stalin did) or by starving off excess population (like Stalin in the Ukraine or North Korea still does today).

                  North Korea is a good example of a mature Stalinist state being able to maintain itself–despite market forces. You’d be amazed at how resilient people can be despite suffering things like mass starvation and wars.

                  Market forces certainly don’t seem to be enough to bring North Korea to its knees.

                  1. Ken.The State of North Korea is already on it’s knee’s. Whenever it needs more capital it threaten’s it’s neighbor to the south, or threatens to send starving refugees to China. Either way the Chinese government loses, and gives them a huge handout. The more China does business with the west, North Korea loses more leverage to extort China with.

                    1. Delivering goods via Black Market org’s through China is a great way to maintain an enemy states stability, and corrode it’s power from within. It’s a long term project.

  10. Another stupid article that does not reference the Cold War or what was actually going on at the time…. As the Soviet Union (I mean has this author even heard of the USSR) was spreading world wide revolution the US fought back…. Had we not the world These days the world is completely different. There is not some world wide revolution taking place. Well actually there is and it is being driven by Capitalism, bringing 100s of millions out of poverty, not by Communists killing for power.

    1. some of the biggest myths of the 20th century: The US needed to fight the USSR and the US was the side of capitalism and freedom

    1. I CAN WALK !!!!

  11. It says a lot about former secretary of state and presumed presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton that she’s a member of the Henry Kissinger Fan Club.

    No kidding. Of COURSE she admires that Machiavellian scumbag.

    -jcr

    1. He is not even an effective Machiavellian scumbag. jcr.

      1. And neither is she.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.